Goss set up architectural visualisation company Goss Visualisations in 2012, having started up his own architectural practice the previous year. In the interview, he reveals that he owes his visualisation style to well-known visualiser Peter Guthrie.

He adds that knowing Guthrie was one of the reasons he decided to set up his own company: "I knew how much Peter was paid for his renders."

Goss goes on to describe how he creates his renders, pointing out that he is unusual in the field because he starts out with Sketch Up. "It's seen as a free bit of Mickey Mouse software," he says. "But in actual fact, it's really good."

Farthings house render

Goss says that 3D renders are already almost indistinguishable from photographs, but are being taken to the next level by "the addition of real world imperfections. Scratches in metal, splinters and chips in timber boards, even fingerprints."

However, Goss warns that rendered images can sometimes surpass the photographs of a building once it is completed. "There's always a danger that the client will come along at the end and stick in a whole bunch of crap furniture," he says. "Then the photographs of the building aren't as good as the render and everyone calls you out on it."

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

Ross Bryant: How did you get into visualisation?

Henry Goss: When I've worked in various [architecture offices] in the past, I've always been the graphic person because I always had a good eye for graphics. In quite a lot of these offices there will always be someone who is better at rendering than others and they will become the render bitch – the go-to person. I kind of just enjoyed it as a hobby almost. Also [leading visualisation artist] Peter Guthrie is a friend of mine and I knew how much Peter was paid for his renders!

Farthings house render

Ross Bryant: People have compared your rendering style to Guthrie, as well as that of Bertrand Benoit.

Henry Goss: Peter Guthrie and Bertrand Benoit are friends of mine. I got into visualisation because of Peter. He used to be an architect and then went down the visualisation route. I set up my practice at the same time and I've learnt 3D through him. That's why a lot of people have compared my style to Peter's; Peter pretty much taught me everything I know in 3D Studio Max.

Ross Bryant: How would you describe your visualisation style? How does it differ from other styles?

Henry Goss: I would describe both Peter's visualisation style, and by association mine, as photographic. I generally think of architectural visualisation in three categories, all three of which are necessary to achieve a high-end result:

1. A technical understanding of the software, this may be obvious but it is impossible to have proper control without having a fairly good knowledge of the tools you are using.

2. An understanding of architecture. An architectural visualiser who has no real appreciation of their subject matter will never grasp the subtleties of what they are attempting to recreate.

3. An understanding of architectural photography. This is often the most overlooked and potentially most important aspect of the three.

Farthings house render

Ross Bryant: What software do you use?

Henry Goss: Largely I use SketchUp for modelling, 3D Studio Max and V-ray for rendering and Photoshop and Light Room for post-production. I also use Peter's HDRI Skies exclusively these days, along with most of the architectural visualisation industry. Obviously, to make the images work at this level, you have all sorts of plug-ins but that's essentially it.

The workflow I use isn't actually used that much in the visualisation world; there's a certain snobbery in the visualisation world about SketchUp because it's seen as a free bit of Mickey Mouse crap software that architects use because they are too stupid to use real 3D programmes. But in actual fact, it's really good.

Staithe End House render

Ross Bryant: Did your visualisation skills help you when you set up your own practice?

Henry Goss: When I started getting better at it and I was going to set up my own practice, I was like: "Well shit, if I'm going to set up my own practice, I need this level of quality." And also if you haven't built a project, you need high-end visualisations to get you noticed in the industry because that's what people expect these days.

Staithe End House

Ross Bryant: Do you present photorealistic renderings to your clients from the outset?

Henry Goss: Early on, you don't want to tie your own mind or your client's mind down to a specific photo-realistic space, you want it to be much more about the early architectural image and the evocation of space and the ethereal nature of light. Later on, when the photorealistic render comes in, it's partly marketing and partly a fascination with the fact that we have the technology that can achieve this.

Staithe End House

Ross Bryant: Why go to so much trouble with the images?

Henry Goss: Two reasons: Firstly publicity. Being a relatively young architectural practice our built portfolio is relatively small. The second reason is that I'm secretly a bit of a geek and I simply enjoy it.

Ross Bryant: How long does each image take?

Henry Goss: It's hard to say as the set up for each job is so different. A simple render with few materials may only take a few days to a week to produce several images. A render with full CG environment such as Staithe End including scatter objects, grass, trees, gravel and procedural textures can take significantly longer. Staithe End was developed gradually over a period of about three months.

Staithe End House

Ross Bryant: Why are there no people in the Staithe End renderings?

Henry Goss: There are two main ways of adding people to renders, either by rendering a 3D modelled person or by montage in post production. The human brain is highly tuned to pick up subtle nuances of human appearance and movement and therefore it's very difficult to achieve a convincing result. I usually add people if the message trying to be conveyed is about use and lifestyle, but I feel that, as with a lot of architectural photography, sometimes the pure nature of the architecture itself is better represented laid bare.

Ross Bryant: How soon will visualisations be indistinguishable from real photos? Or have we already reached that point?

Henry Goss: I think the likes of Peter Guthrie and Bertrand Benoit are pretty much there already, obviously it depends on the resolution of the image/photo. The thing that's currently taking photorealism in architectural visualisation to the next level, most strikingly exemplified by the work of Bertrand Benoit, is the addition of real-world imperfections. Scratches in metal, splinters and chips in timber boards, even fingerprints.

Lode House render

Ross Bryant: Do photorealistic visualisations – and the way they are published on the internet - change the way people perceive architecture?

Henry Goss: I'm sure they do change people's perception and I suspect for the architectural purist it's a negative thing. Architecture as fashion and commodity has been widely discussed and the rendered image has been lambasted for perpetuating the notion of style over substance and image over experience. I even sometimes get people, possibly being tongue-in-cheek, saying, "you don't need to go though the hassle of building that, you've got the pictures already." It's a difficult one as even though I like to think I interrogate architecture, I still regularly find myself flicking through a journal or website and only stopping when I'm seduced by an easily accessible sexy-looking image.

Ross Bryant: Can renderings look better than the finished building?

Henry Goss: The danger is that the client comes along at the end of it, sticks in a whole bunch of crap furniture and then the photographs of the building aren't as good as the render and everyone calls you out on it.

Henry Goss: The big companies are aspiring to a different artistic level, a different kind of integrity and so they don't need the top end visualisations to convey their message. Any architectural image is essentially about conveying a message and in the architectural sketch you might be conveying the essence of a scheme in the simplest possible way.

I'm doing some renders at the moment for an office space and it's essentially a developer who wants a wide-angled perspective so that they can say that's where you sit and have your coffee, that's where the sun comes in and there's the strategically placed child with an obligatory balloon. But that's the shot that shows everything, it shows the fact of what the space is, but it doesn't necessarily show what it feels like. The high-end renders don't necessarily show everything but they're more evocative. You're cropping down and trying to capture the essence of the space.

Ross Bryant: Where is architectural visualisation heading next?

Henry Goss: I see the whole industry heading in the direction where you have a single [digital] model [of a building]. This happens in a lot of the big commercial practices. They have a single model, which not only has all the architectural components, building services components and the structure and coordination of all things, but it's also testing lighting levels and testing environmental factors.

Computer-aided design has now reached a level where it's all becoming very integrated. The visualisation isn't purely visualisation anymore – you can actually use the same [digital] models with the same lighting rigs to test real-life environments and real-life situations. I use it to a small degree but people take it to a greater degree where they are really testing the actual lux levels in a space on a full environmental model.

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but “there’s always a danger that the client will come along at the end and stick in a whole bunch of crap furniture”? Feeling pompous much? If the architecture doesn’t work for the client then you did not do your job properly. What a building looks like is just a small part of what we actually do.

Hayden

Not off topic and not pompous either. It’s simply the architect wishing to express the purest vision of his idea, furniture being an extension of that.

Jim

“The employment of virtual-world perfections is taking cosmetic enhancements to a whole new level.”

emem

Wonderful. As someone who is new to 3D, this is very insightful. I hope to one day produce renders to this quality!

http://www.smegordola.ch/ katharina

Henry Goss is a great architect. I really like his work! Unfortunately I can’t afford any of his beauties :(

Stephen

Great. Might be a bit extreme, I’m not sure he has a built project yet!

I’ll agree it is all very pretty and knowing the people he has learnt from, I suspect he can detail his way out of a paper bag. But, until some of the renders on his website become real he isn’t a great architect.

I’m also a little jealous of the commissions he seems to be getting himself, but he looks to potentially do them justice. Nothing more upsetting than seeing a poorly designed and detailed £1m one-off house; Sandbanks is a place where the heart sinks.

luca

Not bad, but Peter has something more. By the way, how much do they charge for project?

the Empra

“Apple R” workes every time.

Coco

“Henry Goss is a great architect” Why? Because he knows how to use rendering software? He should spend more time on design and less time on rendering.

Also I don’t buy the time / value attached to the images. Generally, rendering companies charge too much money for these things anyway – normally produced in very short spaces of time.

http://www.municharchitecture.de munichmax

I think you do not have a clue about rendering and the real effort it takes. People much to often think that you just have to press the render button and its done, but this is not the truth. It is hard work to get a good looking rendering and it is ok to pay for this work.

And just a side hint: it’s not the computer which does it. It is the person in front.

Just try doing it on your own and you will see how much time it takes and how complicated it is.

In last addition: also the software and workstation is not cheap. like:
– 3DS Max around $4000
– Vray $1300
– Photoshop around $1500
– Workstation with monitor around $250
= nearly $10.000

And now you have ONE license for one computer and one machine running. For professional use this may be too less.

Rick

Load of tosh.

I’m a 3D Artist, have been for several years now, but the value placed on our time producing these kind of renders is absolutely justified. You’re making yourself sound like those crappy film producers who completely undervalue CG Artists/companies, who are well known to be under paid considering the market they are in.

They may be produced in short spaces of time, but that’s not taking into account the skill of the artist, the constant changes by the clients, the pressure of meeting such tight deadlines, modelling bespoke furniture to fit the image, the post work done after rendering.

I love my job, often stay over hours at work because I’m enjoying producing a particular visual. That’s just me going above and beyond, but that’s overlooked by clients also.

However, do agree with the fact that Henry Goss is not a great architect… not yet anyway.

With regards to the article, I disagree with Goss’s timings too, a simple model with simple textures should take 1 day, maybe 2. His Staithe End project, from the visual on show, should probably take no more than a week. Although I presume the building was probably designed alongside the 3d model owing to many changes and amendments. I can probably guarantee though, that although he’s modelled the building, I bet my bottom dollar, he’s using stock furniture and such to populate his scenes. Very much doubt he’s modelling them as well, not in Sketchup for sure.

london_renderer

“Not bad, but Peter has something more. By the way, how much do they charge for project? ”

At least £5k per image at 5000 pixels width with 5 days to complete the image.

Sam

For a new business, rendering can be a valuable asset when trying to win clients, especially when your list of built projects is quite short. Rendering isn’t only about expressing your vision for the design of a project, but also a way of marketing and showing the potential you have as a designer. Some clients are appealed by drawings, some by great imagery. All he may be doing is trying to increase his client base and win clients using the variety of skills he has.

http://www.thesoulofafrica.ch Franziska

Henry Goss is a great architect, I like all of his houses! Unfortunately, I don’t live in one of his houses! :(

Lyle

@ london_renderer : 5K (GBR) per image!? You have got to be kidding! I’m from Canada and that is like $8000 CAD/USD! So, a budget of about $100K just for renderings? I know these are one off custom luxury residences, but either you are yanking my chain or I am charging way to little.

Wilson

I’ve seen building companies put 40k in marketing luxury residences (images, most of the cost), and it’s totally smart since these images are the front line when it’s time to sell.

Six images from a world-class artist would cost me 30k, I still have 10k left to put them nicely in a hard cover book for my potential clients. I’m afraid these numbers are only possible in luxury architecture though.

Ken Diener

“I usually add people if the message trying to be conveyed is about use and lifestyle, but I feel that, as with a lot of architectural photography, sometimes the pure nature of the architecture itself is better represented laid bare.”

This is laying bare the embarrassing truth about modernity and perfect renderings. Architecture is all about the user and the environment that is being created to “live in”. Stick your furniture-less perfection up your computer flash drives and if that is what you want to do, leave the environments to be designed to people that create for their clients not in-spite of them. Simply a truthfully shameful quote and aesthetic.

Wilson

Renderings and architecture are not the same. Neither are their goals.

Bobby Parker.

Yowza. Beautiful renderings!

Mert Yilmaz

The Kjearholm chair sitting outside is a dead giveaway that the images are renderings. Nobody in their right mind would expose such an expensive chair to the elements, and furthermore, the fact that the renderer placed it outside of the house demonstrates a fundamental lapse of sensitivity that is further illustrated by the project itself.